<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/strict.dtd"><html><head><meta name="qrichtext" content="1" /><style type="text/css">p, li { white-space: pre-wrap; }</style></head><body style=" font-family:'Sans Serif'; font-size:10pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal;">On Monday 15 June 2009 14:46:07 Hadley Rich wrote:<br>
> On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 14:41 +1200, Jonathan Hoskin wrote:<br>
> > Also, if you have a bit more money to burn, why not consider RAID-10<br>
> > over RAID-5? RAID-5 comes from a time when disks were expensive and n<br>
> > +1 redundancy was a lot cheaper than n+n. Nowadays n+n on desktop<br>
> > drives is cheap enough, and software RAID-10 is going to be way faster<br>
> > than RAID-5.<br>
><br>
> One point is that you can easily add more disk to a RAID5, and it's fast<br>
> enough for most things.<br>
><br>
> Personally I use JFS mounted on RAID5, no LVM. Not for TV recordings<br>
> though, they are just on a single partition as I don't care about them.<br>
><br>
> Always remember, RAID is for uptime, backups are for data security.<br>
><br>
> hads<br>
<p style="-qt-paragraph-type:empty; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px; -qt-block-indent:0; text-indent:0px; -qt-user-state:0;"><br></p>Wise words, but backing up 3TB+ of DVD's starts to get onerous.... At least RAID gives me some security against disk failure (theft and fire are up to the gods)</p></body></html>